W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > March 2019

Re: Welcome

From: lewis john mcgibbney <lewismc@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 13:46:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGaRif2mzsZ0U8HDdcCmNZwG72PsnERg76a6HoJL8P407ysC6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Cc: "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Hello Linda,
Thanks for your email.
See my responses inline...

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:29 AM Linda van den Brink <
l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:

> Dear Lewis,
>
>
>
>
>
> As chairs of the Spatial Data on the Web Interest Group me and Jeremy
> Tandy would like to welcome you as a new member of our group! You’re not
> entirely new to the group of course, and we thank you for your
> contributions thus far.
>
Glad to chip in where I can. I think the IG has produced some very
interesting artifacts. They have given me a lot to think about which is
great.

>
>
> In case you need it, here is a resource for new members:
>
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/memberwelcome.md
>
>
>
> It should tell you pretty much what you need to know and where you can
> find things. If you miss any information, please let us know!
>

Thanks, I will do.

>
>
> If you’d like to tell us what your interest in the SDWIG is, by responding
> to this email, that would be much appreciated. We can also schedule a call
> with you, to discuss your interest area in spatial data on the web and how
> you could contribute.
>
As you know I have been tracking whats been going on here for quite a few
years now. Since NASA's ridiculous decision to revoke membership in W3C
I've found it more challenging to justify my participation however now
through both the Apache Software Foundation and Earth Science Information
Partnership (ESIP) things have changed as I am now able to contribute.
With regards to contributing towards existing/ongoing SDWIG efforts, my
interests are as follows

   1. CoverageJSON - https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/coverage-json/: This is
   my primary area of interest in the short term. We recently wrote the
   CovJSON module for OPeNDAP meaning that a tremendous amount of NASA's Earth
   science data holdings are now available in CovJSON response format... a
   HUGE step forward in my opinion. I would like to support, where I can, the
   transition of this work from W3C over to the OGC Coverages DWG. As I
   understand it, the now the goal is to work CovJSON as an OGC standard...
   and I am being patient to support that effort where I can.
   2. Publishing and Using Earth Observation Data with RDF Data Cube and
   the Discrete Global Grid System - https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/eo-qb/
   3. QB4ST - https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/qb4st/

Regarding 2 & 3 above, I recently approach Rob Atkinson, Sam Toyer and
Kerry Taylor with the goal of learning more about efforts. I would very
much like to see if there is possibility for us to evaluate some of these
concepts with NASA datasets. I work at PO.DAAC where we have access to
large varieties of data related to Physical Oceanography which would be an
excellent proving ground for both concepts. If anyone is interested in
engaging in this, then let me know.

Finally, since we open sourced SWEET (http://sweetontology.net) and
transitioned governance over to the ESIP Federation, I've now found myself
championing lots of alignment efforts, usage scenarios and general
updates/improvements. Amongst others, Simon Cox has been instrumental in
this effort. The initial goal was to see if SWEET was still relevant. The
reception we've received as a result of updating the ontology suite has
confirmed that SWEET is indeed still relevant. Our approach is not to
compete with any other resource. Instead our approach has been to
compliment where possible, and align with other resources as often as
possible. Examples include SSN/SOSA, ENVO, DCAT, etc. This has become an
ongoing effort and we appear to have been able to rebuild a community
around the effort which is great. I wanted to let the SDWIG community know
that SWEET is alive and kicking and available as LOD which permits an
entirely new spectrum of usage than was possible before.
Back a few years now, when I just got involved with bringing SWEET
up-to-date I mentioned that it would be good to include it within the SDWWG
Best Practices Document and at the time this suggestion was blocked. In
reflection I can see why this choice was made however I hope that now SWEET
could be considered as one of a suite of expressive vocabularies which
could be evaluated by, and possibly endorsed by SDWIG. I will leave this
conversation open and gladly invite anyone who wishes to contribute to this
proposed evaluation.

>
>
> François Daoust (fd@w3.org) is our W3C team contact and can assist you
> with W3C procedural / tooling issues.
>
Thank you, I'll make sure to reach out if I get in a pickle.

On a totally separate note, I am currently organizing a GeoSemantics
Symposium which will take place in July alongside the ESIP 2019 Summer
meeting in Tacoma, WA. I think this will be of interest to lots of people
within the SDWIG community so I'll post on that topic in a completely
separate thread so'as to keep things separate.

Thank you, I'm glad to be back on the list.
Lewis
Received on Sunday, 31 March 2019 20:46:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:53 UTC